Wars and different kinds of fighting have always occurred
in the world since God created it. The origin of war is the desire of
certain human beings to take revenge on others. Each (party) is
supported by the people sharing in its group feeling. When they have
sufficiently excited each other for the purpose and the two parties
confront each other, one seeking revenge and the other trying to defend
itself, there is war. It is something natural among human beings. No
nation and no race (generation) is free from it.

The reason for such revenge is as a rule either jealousy
and envy, or hostility, or zeal in behalf of God and His religion, or
zeal in behalf of royal authority and the effort to found a kingdom.

The first (kind of war) usually occurs between
neighbor­ing tribes and competing families.

The second (kind of war) - war caused by hostility - is
usually found among savage nations living in the desert, such as the
Arabs, the Turks, the Turkomans, the Kurds, andsimilar peoples. They earn their sustenance
with their lances and their livelihood by depriving other people of
their pos­sessions. They declare war against those who defend their
property against them. They have no further desire for rank and royal
authority. Their minds and eyes are set only upon depriving other people
of their possessions.614

The third (kind of war) is the one the religious law
calls "the holy war."

The fourth (kind of war), finally, is dynastic war
against seceders and those who refuse obedience.

These are the four kinds of war 614aThe first two are unjust and lawless, the other two are
holy and just wars.

Since the beginning of men's existence, war has been
waged in the world in two ways. One is by advance in closed formation.
The other is the technique of attack and with­drawal.

The advance in closed formation has been the technique of
all the non-Arabs throughout their entire existence. The technique of
attack and withdrawal has been that of the Arabs and of the Berbers of
the Maghrib.

Fighting in closed formation is more steady and fierce
than fighting with the technique of attack and withdrawal. That is
because in fighting in closed formation, the lines are orderly and
evenly arranged, like arrows or like rows of worshipers at prayer.
People advance in closed lines against the enemy. This makes for greater
steadiness in assault and for better use of the proper tactics. It
frightens the enemy more. A closed formation is like a long wall or a
well-built castle which no one could hope to move. In the divine
revelation, it is said: "God loves those who fight in His behalf in a
line, as if they were a strongly constructed building." 615That means, they steady each other. A tradition says:
"One believer is to another believer like a building of which every part
supports the rest." 616

This makes it obvious what great wisdom there is in
requiring that the lines be kept steady and in forbidding anyone to fall
back during an attack. Battle lines are intended to preserve order, as
we have stated. Those who turn their backs to the enemy bring disorder
into the line formation. They are guilty of the crime of causing a rout.
They somehow cause the Muslims to be routed and enable the enemy to gain
power over them. This is a great sin, because the resulting damage is
general and affects Islam, in that it makes a breach in the protecting
fence. Therefore, it is considered one of the great sins.617
All this evidence shows that fighting in close formation is more
important (than any other kind) in the opinion of the Lawgiver
(Muhammad).

Fighting with the technique of attack and withdrawal is
not as fierce or as secure against the possibility of rout, as is
fighting in closed formation, unless there is set up a steady line
formation to the rear, to which the fighting men may fall back in attack
and withdrawal throughout the fighting. Such a line formation would take
the place of the closed formation, as we shall mention later on.618

The ancient dynasties had many soldiers and a vast realm.
They subdivided their armies into smaller units.619
The reason for this was that their soldiers grew exceedingly numerous
and were assembled from the most remote regions. This made it
unavoidable that some of the soldiers would not know others, when they
mingled on the field of battle and engaged the enemy in shooting and
close fighting. It was feared lest, on such occasions, they would fall
to fighting each other because of the existing confusion and their
ignorance of each other. Therefore, they divided the armies into smaller
units and put men who knew each other together. They arranged the units
in an arrangement resembling the natural one of the four directions (of
the compass). The chief of all the armies, either the ruler himself or a
general, was in the center.620
This arrangement was called "the battle order" (ta'biyah).
It is mentioned in the history of the Persians, that of the Byzantines,
and that of the (Umayyad and 'Abbasid) dynasties at the beginning of
Islam. In front of the ruler stood one army with its own battle lines,
it own general and its own flag 621It was called
"the advance guard." Then, to the right of the
622place where the ruler was, stood another
army. It was called "the right flank." There was another army to the
left, called "the left flank." Then, there was another army behind the
army, called "the rear guard." The ruler and his entourage stood at the
middle of these four (armies). The place where he was, was called the
center. When this ingen­ious arrangement was completed - covering an
area within the field of vision (of a single observer) or extending over
a wider area but with at most one or two days' (journey) be­tween each
of the two armies, and utilizing the possibilities suggested by the
greater or smaller number of soldiers­then, when the battle order was
thus set up, the advance in closed formation could begin. This may be
exemplified by the history of the (Muslim) conquests and the history of
the (Umayyad and 'Abbasid) dynasties. There also is the well­known story
mentioned above from the history of 'Abd-al­Malik, of how his armies
fell back while he was on the move because (the elements of) the battle
order were so widely separated, and how someone was needed to drive them
from behind and al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf was appointed for that purpose.623

Much the same sort of arrangement was also to be found
among the Spanish Umayyads. It is not known among us now, because we
live in a time when dynasties possess small armies which cannot mistake
each other on the field of battle.624
Most of the soldiers of both parties together could now­a-days be
assembled in a hamlet or a town. Everyone of them knows his comrade and
calls him by his name and surname in the thick of battle. Therefore,
this particular battle order can be dispensed with.

One of the techniques of the people who use the technique
of attack and withdrawal, is to set up, behind their armies, a line
formation (barricade) of solid objects and dumb animals to serve as a
refuge for the cavalry during attack and withdrawal. It is intended to
steady the fighters, so that they will fight more persistently and have
a better chance of winning.

Those who fight in closed formation do the same, in order
to increase their steadfastness and power. The Persians who fought in
closed formation used to employ elephants in their wars. They made them
carry wooden towers like castles, loaded with combatants, weapons, and
flags. They disposed them in successive lines behind them in the thick
of battle, as if they were fortresses. This fortified them
psychologically and gave them added confidence.

In this connection, one may compare what happened at al-Qadisiyah.
On the third day, the Persians pressed the Muslims hard with (the
elephants), 625 Eventually,
some out­standing Arabs counterattacked, infiltrated among the
ele­phants, and struck them on the trunk with their swords. (The
elephants) fled and turned back to their stables in al-Mada'in. This
paralyzed the Persian camp, and they fled on the fourth day.

The Rum (Byzantines), the Gothic rulers in Spain, and
most other non-Arab peoples used to employ thrones for the purpose of
steadying the battle lines. A throne would be set up for the ruler in
the thick of battle and surrounded by those of the ruler's servants,
entourage, and soldiers who were thought to be willing to die for him.
Flags were run up at the corners of the throne. A further wall of
sharpshooters and foot soldiers was put around it. The throne thus
assumed considerable dimensions. It became, for the fighters, a place to
fall back upon and a refuge in attack and withdrawal. This was what the
Persians did in the battle of al-Qadisiyah. Rustum sat upon a throne
that had been set up for him there. Finally, the Persian lines became
disordered, and the Arabs pene­trated to (Rustum's) throne. He abandoned
it and went to the Euphrates, where he was killed.

The Arabs and most other Bedouin nations that move about
and employ the technique of attack and withdrawal, dispose their camels
and the pack animals carrying their litters in lines to steady the
fighting men. (Such lines) become for them a place to fall back upon.
They call it al­majbudah.626Every nation that follows this technique can
be observed to be more steady in battle and to be better protected
against being surprised and routed. This is a well attested fact, but it
has been altogether neglected by the contemporary dynasties. Instead,
they dispose the pack animals carrying their baggage and large tents
behind them, as a rear guard. These animals cannot take the place of elephants
and camels. Therefore, the armies are exposed to the danger of being
routed, and they are always ready to flee in combat.

At the beginning of Islam, all battles were fought in
closed formation, although the Arabs knew only the technique of attack
and withdrawal. Two things at the beginning of Islam caused them to
(fight in closed formation). First, their enemies fought in closed
formation, and they were thus forced to fight them in the same way.
Second, they were willing to die in the holy war, because they wished to
prove their endurance and were very firm in their belief. Now, the
closed formation is the fighting technique most suitable for one willing
to die.

The first to abandon the line in war and to use the
battle order by regiments was Marwan b. al-Hakam
627in fighting the Kharijite ad-Dahhak and, after him,
al-Khaybari. At­Tabari said in connection with the killing of al-Khaybari:
"The Kharijites appointed as their leader Shayban b. 'Abd­al-`Aziz al-Yashkuri,
who had the surname of Abu d-Dalfa'. Marwan, thereafter, fought them in
regiments and abandoned the line from that day on."

When the line was discontinued, the practice of fighting
in closed formation was forgotten. Then, when luxury penetrated the
various dynasties, the use of the (rally) line behind the fighters was
forgotten. This was because when they were Bedouins and lived in tents,
they had many camels, and the women and children lived in camp with
them. Then they achieved royal luxury and became used to living in
palaces and in a sedentary environment and they abandoned the ways of
the desert and waste regions. At that time, they forgot the period of
camels and litters, and it was difficult for them to use them. When they
traveled, they left their women behind. Royal authority and luxury
caused them to use tents both large and small. They restricted
themselves to pack animals carrying baggage and tents. They used these
things to form their (protective) line in war. It was by no means
sufficient. These things, unlike one's own family and property, do not
inspire any willingness to die. 628People,
therefore, have little endurance. The turmoil of the battle frightens
them, and their lines crumble.

We have mentioned the strength that a line formation
behind the army gives to the fighters who use the technique of attack
and withdrawal. Because of (this fact), the Maghribi rulers have come to
employ groups of European Christians in their army, and they are the
only ones to have done that, for their compatriots know only the
technique of attack and withdrawal. The position of the ruler is
strengthened by establishing a line formation in support of the fighting
men ahead of it. The men in such a line formation must be people who are
used to hold firm in closed formation. If not, they will run away like
the men who use the technique of attack and withdrawal, and, when they
run away, the ruler and the army will be routed. Therefore, the rulers
of the Maghrib had to use soldiers from a nation used to hold firm in
closed formation. That nation was the European Christians. The line
formation around their (army) is formed by European Christians. The
Maghribi rulers do that despite the fact that it means utilizing the aid
of unbelievers. They do not think much of it, because the necessity (of
using such men) exists, as we have shown. They fear that their own line
formation might run away, and (they know that) the European Christians
know only how to hold firm, because it is their custom to fight in
closed formation. They are, therefore, more suitable for the purpose
than others. However, the Maghribi rulers employ (such European
Christians) only in wars against Arab and Berber nations, in order to
force them into submission. They do not use them for the holy war,
because they are afraid that they might take sides against the
Musliras. Such is the situation in the Maghrib at this time. We have
shown the reason for it. "God knows everything."
629

We hear that the fighting (technique) of the
contemporary Turkish nations is the shooting of arrows. Their battle
order consists of a line formation. They divide their army into three
lines, one placed behind the other. They dismount from their horses,
empty their quivers on the ground in front of them, and then shoot from
a sitting position. Each line protects the one ahead of it against being
overrun by the enemy, until victory is assured for one party. This is a
very good and remarkable battle order.

In war, the ancients followed the method of digging
trenches around their camps when they were about to attack. (They did
that) because they were afraid of treacherous night attacks and assaults
by night upon the camp, since darkness and wildness multiply fear. Under
such conditions, the soldiers might seek refuge in flight and would find
in the darkness a psychological protection against the shame of
(fleeing). If all the soldiers were to have the same (idea), the camp
would be disorganized, and there would be a rout. Therefore, they were
accustomed to dig trenches around the camp, when they encamped. They set
up their tents and made trenches all around them on every side, lest the
enemy be able to get through them in a night attack, in which case they
would abandon each other.

The dynasties used to have the strength and power to do
such things involving large concentrations of manpower, wherever they
settled, because civilization was prosperous and royal authority
impressive. But when civilization was ruined and (the strong dynasties)
were succeeded by weak dynasties with few soldiers and no workers, the
thing was altogether forgotten, as if it had never been.

God is the best of those who have power.

One should think of the admonitions and encouragement
that 'Ali gave his men on the day of Siffin. One will find in them a
good deal of military knowledge. No one had better insight into military
matters than 'All. He said in one of his speeches: "Straighten out your
lines like a strongly constructed building.630

"Place the armed men in front, and those who are not
armed in the rear.

"Bite on your molars. This makes it harder for sword
blows to harm the head.

"Keep (something) wrapped around [?] the tips of the
spears. This preserves the sharpness of points.

"Keep the eyes down. This keeps the soul more
con­centrated and gives greater peace to the heart.

"Kill (all) noises. This drives vacillation away more
effectively and is more becoming to dignity.

"Do not hold your flags inclined and do not remove them.
Place them in the hands only of those among you who are brave.

"Call upon truth and endurance for aid, for 'after
endur­ance there is victory.' "

Al-Ashtar 631 on that day, to
encourage the Azd, said: "Bite on your molars and meet the people
(enemy) head on. Be violent like men who, long frustrated from their
revenge, are now out to revenge their fathers and their brothers, who
are full of wrath against the enemy, and who have prepared themselves
for death, so that they shall not be prevented from taking revenge and
not be disgraced in this world."

Abu Bakr as-Sayrafi, the poet of the Lamtunah (Almora­vids)
and the Spaniards, has referred to many such things in a poem in which
he praises Tashfin b. 'Ali b. Yusuf and describes his steadfastness
during a battle in which he participated.632
He refers to his military affairs.in
words of admoni­tion and warning that make a great deal of knowledge
con­cerning warfare available to (the reader). He says in (the poem):

A person under the influence of a lie (acts) senselessly638whatever he may
do.

The statement, "Attack the enemy right away, do not
hesitate, etc," is contrary to the general practice of warfare. 'Umar
said to Abu 'Ubayd b. Masud ath-Thaqafi, when he entrusted him with the
war against Firs and the 'Iraq: 639 "Listen to the
men around Muhammad and let them participate in the command. Do not
answer hastily, (answer) only when everything is clear to you. It is
war, and only the calm man, who knows when there is an opportunity and
when he has to restrain himself, is suited for warfare." According to
another (report), he said to him: "The only thing that prevents me from
putting Salit in command is his rashness in war. Rashness in war, unless
everything is clear, is disastrous. By God, if it were not for that, I
should have made him commander, but only a calm man is suited for
warfare." This is what 'Umar said. It is proof that in war it is better
to go slow than to be hasty, until the situation in a particular battle
is clear. This is the contrary of what as-Sayrafi said, unless he means
attacking after. everything is clear. This is a possible explanation.
And God knows better. There is no certainty of victory in war, even when
the equipment and the numerical (strength) that cause victory (under
normal circumstances), exist. Victory and superiority in war come from
luck and chance. This is explained by the fact that the causes of
superiority are, as a rule, a combination of several factors. There are
external factors, such as the number of soldiers, the perfection and
good quality of weapons, the number of brave men, (skillful) arrangement
of the line formation, the proper tactics, and similar things. Then,
there are hidden factors. (These hidden factors) may be the result of
human ruse and trickery, such as spreading alarming news and rumors to
cause defections (in the ranks of the enemy)occupying high points, so
that one is able to attack from above, which surprises those below and
causes them to abandon each other; hiding in thickets or depressions and
concealing oneself from the enemy in rocky terrain, so that the armies
(of one's own side) suddenly appear when (the enemy) is in a precarious
situation and he must then flee to safety (instead of defending
himself), and similar things. These hidden factors may also be celestial
matters, which man has no power to produce for himself. They affect
people psychologically, and thus generate fear in (them). They cause
confusion in the centers of (armies), and there are routs. Routs very
often are the result of hidden causes, because both parties make much
use of (the opportunities offered by) them in their desire for victory.
One of them must by necessity be successful in their use. Wherefore,
Muhammad said: "War is trickery."
640An Arab proverb says: "Many a trick is worth
more than a tribe."
640a

It is thus clear that superiority in war is, as a rule,
the result of hidden causes, not of external ones. The occurrence of
opportunities as the result of hidden causes is what is meant by the
word "luck," as has been established in the proper place. Considering
the fact that superiority may be the result of celestial factors, as we
have explained, one understands Muhammad's statement: "I was helped
through the terror (that befell the enemy) for the length of one month's
journey." 641(The
same fact explains) Muhammad's victory withsmall numbers over the polytheists during his
lifetime, and the victories of the Muslims during the Muslim conquests
after (Muhammad's death). God took care of His Prophet. He threw terror
into the hearts of the unbelievers. (That terror,) eventually, seized
control over their hearts, and they fled. (This, then, was) a miracle
wrought by God's Messenger. Terror in the hearts of their enemies was
why there were so many routs during the Muslim conquests, but it was a
factor concealed from the eyes.

At-Turtushi 642mentions
that one of the reasons for victory in war is that one side may have a
larger number of brave and famous knights than the other. For instance,
one side may have ten or twenty famous heroes, and the other only eight
or sixteen. The side that has more, even if only one more, will be
victorious. He states this very emphatically. He is referring to the
external causes we have mentioned before, but he is not right. What is
the fact proven to make for superiority is the situation with regard to
group feeling. If one side has a (single) group feeling comprising all,
while the other side is made up of numerous different groups, and if
both sides are approximately the same in numbers, then the side that has
a single (comprehensive) group feeling is stronger than, and superior
to, the side that is made up of several different groups. These
different groups are likely to abandon each other, as is the case with
separate individuals who have no group feeling at all, each of the
groups being in the same position as an individual. Thus, the side
composed of several different groups cannot stand up to the side whose
group feeling is one. This should be understood. It should be realized
that this is a better explanation than the one at­tempted by at-Turtushi.
At-Turtushi's (explanation) was suggested by the fact that the
importance of group feeling was no longer known in his generation and in
the place where he lived.643
(People in this situation) think of defense, military protection, and
the pressing of claims, in terms of individuals and masses of
individuals. They do not consider group feeling or common descent in
this connection. We explained this at the beginning of the book.644

Moreover, such and similar things, if correct, still
belong among the external causes (of victory), such as the existence of
an identical number of soldiers on both sides, the proper tactics, the
quantity of weapons, and similar things. How could such things guarantee
victory, considering that we have just established that none of them is
a match for the hidden causes, such as ruse and trickery, or for the
celestial factors, such as divine terror and defection? This should be
known, and the conditions of the world should be understood. God
determines night and day.645

The idea of victory in war as depending on hidden and
unnatural causes (reminds us) of the related situation that exists with
regard to fame and renown. Fame and renown are rarely to be found in
their proper places anywhere in any class of people, whether they be
rulers, scholars, pious men, or the virtuous in general. Many people are
famous and renowned, yet do not deserve it. Many are reputed villains,
yet they are just the opposite. Many have been passed over by fame, and
yet they may deserve it and be more entitled to it (than others).
Sometimes, fame and renown are to be found in their proper places and do
conform to the actual merit of the person who enjoys them.

The reason for this is that fame and renown are the
result of (historical) information. In the process of transmission, the
(original) intentions are forgotten, and bias and partisanship affect
the information, as do unfounded assumptions as well as ignorance of the
conformity of the stories to (actual) conditions,646
resulting from the fact that they have become obscured by falsification
and artifice, or from the ignorance of the transmitter. (The information
is also) affected by the desire to insinuate oneself into the good
graces of great men of the world and other persons of high rank through
eulogizing and praising (them), embellishing the facts and spreading
fame in this manner 647The (human) soul is ardently in love with
praise, and people go all out for this world and for the rank or wealth
that belong (to this world). As a rule, they have no desire for virtue,
and they do not care for those who have it. In view of all this, how
could (we expect) there to be any conformity with the truth? Thus,
renown results from hidden causes and does not conform (to reality).
Things that result from hidden causes are what we express by the word
"luck," as has been established.